How can grown-ups believe that walking around on stage yelling and pushing people can cure cancer? The stupidity and ignorance you need for that... I can hardly imagine.
"God never lies." No, he doesn't but low life scum do. How many people died early deaths do to believing him? :( Hopefully some were cured through faith but it wouldn't be by that low life. This makes me sad.
@tetleydidley you know I thought the EXACT same thing the whole time XD the video wasn't that interesting while Randi wasn't speaking :P everyone should already know Uri is a big fraud anyway
She believes her cancer is healed "because God never lies." In other words, God is speaking through this jerkoff evangelist-healer's mouth. No matter which is true it's still just as horrifying.
The whole of our society is based on this kind of thinking the scientific method is almoust not used at all... Get a grip of reality BEFORE you make decisions and participate that has consequences you have NO idea of even existing!
Reality = What you know exists - what you know doesnt exist.
@AresCassell That seems rather cruel. Plenty of people are desperate or raised in an environment where things like faith healing feel reasonable. Not to mention that Popoffs stuff was somewhat clever in the coordination he used. The fact is that people need to be informed so that they can learn and avoid being conned by these people.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
To anyone who reads these messeges, could you please tell mr. randi that I've been waiting for a response. it's time for me to put a stop in all this nonsense about fake psychics. I'm real and I know of and elder who came before me and he is real too. I am impervious to illness and I say that If You want the proof, it's right here trying to slap you in the face for ignoring it. I'm willing to bet my life against his Million, in my opinion the stakes couldn't be higher.
There is something so dreadfully abhorrent about making so much money giving people who are so ill, or even facing death, such outrageous false hope. The US has always been a good playing field for this sort of thing it seems.
Has anyone seen the Noels House Party clip where he is filmed with a hidden camera, and can be seen clearly bending a spoon under a table? That's was hilarious...it's was GAME OVER, GAME OVER URI!
His career ended right there, thanks to Noel fucking Edmonds! At least he did SOMETHING useful with his life, the hairy midget....
Anyone who believes this nonsense is just as stupid as those ancients who would perform human sacrifices because the "sun was dying". Its just ridiculous to believe that a thing which causes an effect can have no measurable impact so as to be defined by or subject to a natural process- i.e. if I can levitate, I can prove to you that I can levitate. If I cannot then the lack of ability is self-apparent.
I can demonstrate to you that I understand what emotions are, I can provoke emotional response from thousands of miles away. You can compare our brain wave patterns when shown emotional stimuli.
Point B - You can *seem* to provoke an emotional response, but there's no way of knowing if it was genuine. And even if so, this does not prove that YOU have emotions.
Point C - If my contention is that I don't possess emotions, when in fact I do, then comparing our brainwaves during stimuli would seem to prove to me that you also don't possess emotions.
How can you prove that brainwaves are indicative of emotion? All you prove is that *something* is happening.
Sadly there are two things that we are proving right now
1.) The strength of the scientific method. & 2) Schools have failed.
(Do not take offense)
If one is looking for proof, why would one sabotage the results by faking emotional responses that would throw off the test? Through the test we would be able to determine that the areas active in your brain were different from mine, so we would need a third (non-biased) person to test.
Point A - You somehow missunderstood my premise, it was not sabotage that I was suggesting but simply a delusion. If my delusion is that I think I have no emotions, and also that YOU have no emotions, and everyone else for that matter, then using a brain scan would not prove anything to me. If your brain scan during stimuli looks the same as mine, then from my perspective you are proving that you are like me; emotionless. A third person could also be regarded the same way.
Another tenant of Science is reserving prejudgment. I can assure you my study of it, albeit mostly self-taught (schooling I grant you is not great) is sufficient. Rather than trying to anticipate where I'm going with this debate and assuming that I don't know what I'm talking about - just indulge me.
Your refined answer lays the foundation for my argument. "Any reasonable person". Bear this phrase in mind as we continue, and remember that we are all human, flawed and capable of irrationality.
I am disheartened @ my inability to convince you that my objective is not to offend. Those who are self taught in most scientific pursuits, are usually the ones who have a solid grasp on the fundamentals. I have seen your comments before & have seen sound reasonings, I cannot know your intent so I will not, & have not jumped to a final conclusion. Reread my statements to FSA. I enjoy seeing the workings of other minds, this type of discourse is mental exercise. All who read will benefit.
Sorry it has taken me so long to reply, I had other matters to deal with.
Regardless of whether or not you're trying to offend me, I am not offended that easily, so the matter is purely academic at this point. (Although I fail to see any other possible motive for saying "schools have failed" in retaliation to someone's preliminary argument other than to be insulting, your intentions behind that are quite clear so let's stop dancing.) Conversation is limited here, PM me if you want to use IM.
I have said it more than once, & I will not continue to state it. If you are unwilling to accept my sincere words that is your choice. Why else would I have gone to such efforts to assure that I meant & mean no disrespect in my RESPONSE (not RETALIATION)?
Unified scholastic curriculum is meant to standardize certain things one should be able to call "common knowledge". Yet, can we say that it is so?
Psychology is my thing. Using the scientific method, we define & treat mental irregularities.
All pre-college schooling should either equate to preparation for higher learning endeavors or at the least comprehension of the basics. The average person in America does not understand what a "Theory" is, this should be alarming to our leaders.
Arab Nations once taught the world arithmetic. Now look at them. Will we revert to their level of unreasonable sociopolitical lifestyle?
One should be able to use key words that are universally understood to have a certain meaning. Not so.
Just look at our continuing discussion & understand this fact. The mean (average) reading level in American literature (Magazines, novels, news paper articles) is equal to ~6th grade. Our discussion, as simple as it has been for the two of us, is well beyond the majority of American printing standards!
OUR SCHOOLS HAVE FAILED.
Who will build our jets, bombs, power plants, and medical equipment in the future if things continue the way they are?
Oh, and the fact that you were offended is exemplified by your persistence in claiming that my intent was to offend. I've never stated to you that your intent is obviously to argue, although it would seem so to every colleague I've shared this particular thread with, but any onlooker could surmise my opinion if I continually made the comment that "you just like to argue, even if you are wrong you would argue trying to be right..."
One cannot be lead to an understanding they refuse to accept.
If I can aptly describe feelings that you have experienced, but no one else has seen you experience, it should serve as proof that I too have emotions. The first evidence is my ability to demonstrate understanding of the unseen, unknowable, concealed nature of emotion. Just in proving cognition, I show understanding beyond what can be seen, therefore I would be more likely than not to share emotional states.
Point B - Irrelevant, if my belief is that both you and I have no emotions, then you will not be able to describe emotions I have felt. In fact, to better put what I am trying to achieve here in context, let's imagine that everyone in the world believes they are emotionless, except you.
You know you have emotions, you could prove it to other people who have emotions, but even if hypothetically there were a small group of others who had them, I could dismiss them as being as delusional as you.
You are right. That does constitude proof. *To me*.
To anyone else it is "mass hysteria", or "confirmation bias", or even "hot reading" - in positing a similar argument some time ago I was rebutted with the insinuation that everyone who claims to possess psychic ability and describes the exact same things has simply researched it online in order to gain access to a list of symptoms which they could fake
Logical argument, but if it can be used there, then it discredits your emotions as well
Psychic phenomenon would be proven true if one could use my methods of proving emotional existence. One cannot though, so it cannot be proven true. In fact, a strong argument toward the disproving of psychic powers is found in looking at the brain scans of those who say they have psychic abilities and those who staunchly say the powers do not exist. The test show no new cranial activity along any frequency, no unaccounted neuro-chemical levels, & zero greater than chance responses.
Lastly, the "something" that would be happening would happen each time a certain stimuli was given. Through repeatedly giving a stimuli and repeatedly getting a reaction a definitive correlation would be shown. Once the correlation is shown, all we would have to do is look for the specific brainwave reaction in others.
This is one of the basic tenets of science. Test, observe, document, theorize/predict, test, observe, true/false. True= sound theory. False= try again.
Point C - Again, this only proves that there is "something" happening, just because the "something" is consistent, does not mean there is a correlation between the premise and the conclusion. You can say that the brain wave spike is you feeling emotion, I could argue that it is some other form of reaction to the stimuli. You described the scientific methodology well, but this for not account the intervention of others denying that any of those steps are conclusive.
To summarize; I ask you to find a way to prove to me, and hypothetically a large body of persons who are not inherrently open to the idea, that you possess emotions.
Bear in mind that if you invoke other people who also feel them, they can be dismissed as delusional. If you persist in trying to prove passive correlations, I can merely suggest alternative ones. And even if you could outright prove you have emotions, what's to stop the rest of us from dismissing your work as biassed or faked?
Although your original question was slightly different, "Can you prove to me that you have emotions?" My answer needs only slight modification to provide sufficient retort for the reasonable-
By testing the brainwave patterns of a percentage of emotion deniers against emotion believers a definitive correlation would be shown to exist between the active portions of the mind & experience of emotion, regardless of what the deniers wanted to call the feelings that made the tears or the smiles.
I think what Mr. Utopia down there is also trying to do in order to make his point, is to essentially, in a very indirect way, re-define the term emotion until it's ultimately meaningless.
If one looks closer at Utopia's argument, one might see a theist view point. (I know that this might seem like another poke at Utopia, but again, I swear it is not). The thought that one can experience something that cannot be quantified is false. We in this world only experience reality through our senses. Our senses measure physical phenomenon only, period. So EVERYTHING that can be experienced in reality is done on this material plane where science can study.
Youtube message box is acting wierd not letting me post. Annoying.
Anyway, you have only shows me correlation so far. While I apparently lack schooling, you should know, being better educated, that this is *not* scientific proof.
So thus far, you have failed to prove this provable fact which you posit. Although I am not denying that you can, I am merely pointing out that so far your points have not been sufficient.
I hate when that happens. I had a beautiful summation, pushed post & got the gray screen of death...
Indeed, showing correlation is not the completion of any scientific process. It is one of the steps though. If this step can be made & a structured relationship between events can be proven by replication, predictions can be made & proven false. Falsification is necessary, if it cannot be proven false it does not exist and the point is moot (as in only hypothetical).
"Indeed, showing correlation is not the completion of any scientific process."
And this is the only concession I needed you to make. I want to remind you that what I asked you for when we began was *PROOF THAT YOU HAVE EMOTIONS*.
Your concession that the correlations you have so far presented are not technically proof, in and of itself, contradicts your claim that you successfully met my challenge.
Therefore, as it stands I am evidently still waiting for you to PROVE you have emotions;
This equation is true whether you want to believe it or not. the proof is before me right now as I type: I have one box containing one beer and one box containing two beers...
1+1 is not 3, unless one is a mutable (which it is).
One can say, "That's not true. There are only two boxes" all they want, but those two boxes still equal three beers, FACTUALLY. My view your view, his view, her view. There are three beers in these two boxes.
Leaving out statements about the nature of the equation leads to statements that disagree with fact. A fact being defined as what is actual & not debatable. You are alive; regardless of what you say, the fact that you can say it means you are alive. Non-debatable.
Proving to a misguided person the fact that I have emotions is not the same as proving the existence of emotion to a in-exist-able population of emotionless sentient beings that just happen to share my language.
Friend, establishing correlation is the foundation of actualizing knowledge. One can use scans to see the areas that light up when happy vs sad vs unsure vs sure to prove emotion, if you would call emotion something else that is a linguistic issue. The areas of the brain are like keys on a keyboard. Emotion is a combination of different cranial regions becoming active and passing chemicals. All of which can be measured & quantified.
But none of which can be truly *known* to be what they supposedly are. You can say that this cocktail of hormones provokes that emotional response, but to a collection of people who are completely emotionless, you are referencing a state of being to which they cannot relate, and therefore can NOT be quantified.
To draw the parralels between the scan results and human emotion, you need to define and prove what emotion IS. Now imagine doing that in a world where you are the only one who has it.
The release of chemical IS emotion. Without it emotion does not exist. Emotion makes us want sex, food, safety, etc. For humans to exist, we must have emotions. Prove the Sun exists to a sunless people...
The people you speak of do not exist. You say prove an existing thing to a non-exist-able population. The opposite is possible, only because people who will believe anything exist, but your newest rendition of example has no founding.
Hey FSA, you're in the right ball park, but if you are interested to see where I am going with this feel free to keep watching. Suffice to say I am not so much trying to render the term itself meaningless, but the concept. I am trying to show how even something that is true can be ignored and denied, have holes poked in it and rendered illogical, even when staying within the confines of decent scientific methodology. I am trying to show how even truth takes a backseat to popular opinion.
The thrill of magic is having a logical conclusion APPARENTLY disproved by one's own eyes. Logic can be ignored, but even some wrong things are logical. Truth is not always logical. The concept of logic cannot be categorized with truth, although to do such would be reasonable, lol!
One could reason themselves into a false logic, & one could logically have false reasoning. Some people believe true things for the wrong reasons. Their very belief is illogical.
But remember it goes both ways. Sometimes people disbelieve things solely because they seems illogical, in spite of the truth.
What I'm trying to get accross to you here is that the only plausible argument to the situation I have engineered, relies on the *assumption* that emotion is a prexisting, preunderstood thing. It depends on there being a universal prior knowledge of it, for you to be able to say "and this is when emotion happens". Take away that assumption, and what are you left with?
I agree whole heatedly with your first statement here; logic, belief & truth are not correlative.
Let me see if I understand the next part:
1st person (1p)- Kidegofieu are the best ever!
2p- What are you talking about? You just made that up!
1p- What? No I didn't!
2p- Prove it!
& that ( I think) is where we are, there is either proof, or there is not proof. One can LITERALLY see emotion happen on a neuro imaging machine, so call it something different, but it is visible, measurable, real.
Granted my original question was different, merely because I had not refined it enough to be a proper example of what I am trying to portray.
Nevertheless, a true scientist does not rely on statistical correlations. These are meant as a guide for research, not evidence of conclusion. Every time someone presses the doorbell, my heart happens to be beating. This is a correlation - NOT A CAUSATION.
The emotion deniers can easily claim that the reaction evidence is *not emotional* in nature.
I did already explain this in my point B rebuttal, which you didn't seem to acknowledge.
Correlation has uses when trying to pin down a path of research, let's say you are studying solar flares and their effects on technology - you might want to observe the statistical correlations between failed radio signals and flare activity. These correlations are *not* proof in and of itself that the flares caused the failures, the correlations give you a rough idea of where to BEGIN looking for proof.
By objectively noting a correlation one can form a thesis. Theory is sound prediction based on study. Study is observation & objective notation. If a prediction is correct, the theory is sound. If a theory is sound it can be used to solve deeper mysteries of like order.
Goats get jumpy after eating a berry? Eat the berry, get jumpy, rename the berry & sell as beans. Thus, coffee is introduced to the world by an Ethiopian. The correlation between jumpy goats & the berries was made, the research was done, coffee is created. Now, we take coffee & use it to make medicines. That is both science & applied science.
I do not want to jump to a conclusion, but it seems you are saying that caffeine is homeopathic. Are you denying the numerous sleep studies, ADD/ADHD studies, depression studies, cancer studies, liver & kidney studies, and addiction studies? Or are you saying that caffeine could effect one, in doses of 1:100,000 like the homeopathic companies claim?
If you haven't figured it out yet, what I'm trying to show you is that some aspects of reality are SUBJECTIVE. They cannot BE studied objectively.
Consider the case of a hypothetical colour blind man. He sees red and green reversed. Every time he sees red, he processes it as green and vice versa. For his entire life hes been told that this green colour he sees is called "red", so while he sees it differently, he calls it the same name. How would he, or anyone else ever know he's colour blind?
ALL aspects are subjective. I cannot see through your eyes, only mine. That is fact, but I can know what you are seeing by you telling me. If you say that you see yellow plus blue as red, I know that either my perspective is in question or yours is. The truth is (in this case) by the numbers, but no matter how many people say that you do not exist, you are still here. Your existence is NOT a subjective truth. You exist, whether people know it/ acknowledge it, or not.
I touched on reasoning before, your point c though, is illogical. If one pushes the "door bell" on a house & a chime is heard, one can logically reason the door bell is connected to the sound. Even if false, the reasoning is logical. If one repeatedly pushes the door bell & each press brings a chime, logic would dictate the assumption of correlation to be true. To think else with the given evidence would be both illogical & unreasonable.
This is somewhat of a strawman on your part, although apparently not deliberate. I have not said that logic is flawed, I am not attacking the *act of reasoning*. What I am saying is that even if being reasonable, your conclusion can still be denied.
Turn the example around. Let's consider that everyone on earth is deaf but you. Your assertion that the door bell makes noise is reasonable, but we have no reason to accept it.
You said it yourself, even IF the conclusion is false, the reasoning is logical. What IF the conclusion IS false? A scientist must be willing to consider this, and a scientist who has believed his entire life that it IS will be compelled to stick to that belief. And while preconceptions are not good science, anyone can warp the scientific methodology to justify them
This is not an attack on science, but on the inherrent biasses of human nature, which cannot be denied, and must not be ignored.
Without reason, deceit becomes easy. Only where everything can be argued as falsifiable, can truth exist. Subjective truth is not truth at all. Objective truth only exists when people put their own beliefs aside. A circle is not a circle because I see it as a circle. My vision cannot be trusted to make that definitive judgment, I can only see from my prospective what you see as a triangle...
Objective= ignoring all bias & human nature (unless one is studying bias & human nature, of course).
Sorry but you are wrong here. Subjective truth does exist, you are proving it right now. Information IS subjective. The words we are writing are not magical containers which dispense a physical substance which we call meaning - the meaning behind the words is interpretted mentally. The substance of our communication exists within our mind, not as an objective physical entity. All information is subjective, and all of it has a truth behind it. And one cannot be objective about the mind of another
Truth is independent of viewpoint. I am in existence. From the aspect of an observer one google to the trillionth power away, I do not exist, but here I am. Truth is FACT. Subjective "truth" is NOT fact. Saying that a CONE is a CIRCLE or a TRIANGLE is false. It may appear as either via particular viewpoint, but it IS neither. Subjective truth IS NOT TRUTH, it IS opinion, perspective and mutable. I never said opinions do not exist friend, just that they are not "truth".
In this analogy the problem would be only in explaining how vibration effects the one. Establishing that vibration exists, showing a correlation between lower frequency vibration & the non-deaf reactions to higher frequency vibrations one could positively establish "noise" as in existence. Blindfolded & facing away from the source, one presses the button and the hearing can signal the occurrence. Double blind the study. A reasonable deaf person will accept this as proof.
(The reason I said "now apply this to my other example" is because this door bell metaphore was not my standing argument. It was not well rounded enough to represent my case, therefore this portion of your rebuttal was a wasted argument.)
The "door bell" analogy has merit because of the 'when this is done, this occurs' aspect of my proposed solution to your hypothetical. If one has no fear, but is able to experience pain, will that one (after being pierced through the hand) flinch as the piercing implement draws close to the other hand? The answer is not likely (we have found no absolutes). Fear is based on recollection, memory plus expectation make up the majority of emotion. If one has no emotion, one has no recollection.
If the memory center, pre-frontal lobe, & certain other "keys" become active (reward center etcetera), we know an emotional response is happening. We can tell happy from sad by seeing the different sections that light up.
EVERYTHING that exists can be quantified.
Humans are remarkably similar, as is all life to all other life. Hospitals would not exist if only 50% of people were similar. There's one way a body is built with only variation in proportion. & no, abnormalities don't count.
Hey, sorry for dissapearing 2 months ago while we were debating, I had internet problems that I just fixed.
I'm not sure where we were in the debate as it seems to be encoraching at several seperate points within the comment list and there's no way to isolate a timeline.
If you want to continue this debate, here or in PM/IM let me know. For now I'll rest on what I believe is the most relevant remaining point. You can't provide FULL proof of emotion, only correlations which work both ways.
Prove Eta Carinae is hot and you will prove emotion exists. Prove a knife that is used to butcher can cut paper and you will prove emotion exists. We don't have to do things in order to know things. We can observe and compare. That is why we now know that there exists living micro organisms that make people sick, and the sane don't blame illness on spirits and such nonsense.
I see that rather than return to the present state of the debate and continue the point exchange you've instead chosen to resort to what I can only discern as a half-assed psuedo-philosophical strawman that clearly indicates you have no further interest in taking the debate seriously.
I respect this, but understand that since you're the one choosing to dismiss the debate despite crucial undisputed points to be addressed; I justifiably consider this to be a forfeit on your part. Take care. :)
whatever forfeit... the same tools man uses to measure that which was mentioned are used in measuring... It doesn't matter, this is pointless. You think what you want, NOTHING you ever hear, no proof ever given will ever cause you to realize the folly of your train of thought. So, emotion doesn't exist, even though emotional states can be seen to happen via brain scans...
You don't know what my train of thought is because in all these months you've been too stubborn to concede what is by now an obvious poin, in order to let me progress onto my overall argument.
The fact is you cannot prove you have emotion. I selected this for a special reason, emotion is a form of information, and information is always subjective. Thus you can never be truly objective about it and therefore cannot definitively prove it exists. Concede this fact, and we can finally progress.
All I need to know about your "point" I have already seen. I can, & have in fact, lain out an accurate method of establishing whether or not emotion can be quantified. It can & has been.
Simple fact, everything mankind knows to exist can be proven to exist.
You disagree, so ask the parent of a child with autism who has witnessed the child's progressive dismissal of emotion, whether or not one can prove it exists.
I wouldn't be strong any night which the world was not set up in my favor, either.
Magicians are good in the arts of deception and entertainment. There's too many superstitious, supernatural believers to funnel their own income into a charlatain's bank account. It all boils down to money, who can get it from who, and all is fair if it isn't force or theft.
I'll be looking forward to the scientific renaissance of the masses.
That's the problem. Almost everything is 'forced'. Even advertising is based on bullshit. Being skeptical is something that is of paramount importance. And it's in short supply in today's world.
Everything I said is the truth as best as I could tell it--I swear it on the graves of my parents. If my opinion is wrong opinion, then at least I had the courage enough to attempt to live in truth. And I think, at least, I, in my own mind, can more assuredly rest on this idea of the incredible power of the subconscious mind, if even tapped for a while. TheFounderUtopia's comment on the line that becomes blurred is very profound. Good words. Now I have said enough to get some muck off my pluck.
Science depends upon the idea that its hold on knowledge be both public & repeatable. Good stuff. But what of a kind of knowing that is private & nonrepeatable? Can this exist in a man or woman. Indeed it has & will continue to do so, I think. After all, much genius in science began as one person who knew truth in a private & nonrepeatable manner. Mere opinion? Well Plato described knowledge as truth tied down, & right opinion as truth not tied down. Mine is untied, but maybe not some day, no?
2. My next prosaic explanation for this experience was that my subconscious had timed when my alarm clock would be going off because of a long series of being awakened by it at the same time every day. The problem here was that I worked the night shift & was attending school together. Also had to drive my nieces to school on unpredictable days. I was going to sleep & awakening at different times. Many things were going on. My sleep was not regular, timewise. Any suggestions?
I believe this explanation makes the most sense. The mind is an incredibly powerful thing, and consciously we only have so much awareness with which to control it - as such a lot of its potential goes untapped.
There are people out there who can always tell you what time it is down to the second whenever you ask them, without looking at a watch. It is well within the subconscious mind's capacity to estimate exactly when the alarm will go off according to its own memories and wake you first.
Well, first of all, thank you for your suggestions. What you said about the enormous capacity of the subconscious mind is certainly a worthy consideration. If it was my subconscious tracking time and letting me know, I am amazed at how it could juggle with my odd sleeping habits and let me know the time on my clock right down to the minute. When I awoke, I really had no idea of what time it was. But the voice was dead on every time. If it's not psychic, it's still amazing all the same.
I agree it is amazing. In fact, the more we learn about the awesome potential of the mind, the less unbelievable psychic ability begins to seem in my opinion.
The line between "paranormal" and "strange but true" seems to blur every day - and it's the status quo against paranormal belief which keeps having to change its borders to accomodate this.
Whether you consider it psychic or not, the human mind is an incredibly powerful thing.
I think the best of my experiences was the time I woke from a dead sleep hearing this sharp, clear voice telling me: "Matt is here." Several seconds later, I heard the gate door slam below my window, then foot steps coming up the stairs and Matt knocking on my door, calling my name. I lived in a rooming house and seldom had visitors. My room was too small for guests and I usually just phoned and met them at their places. He or a family member might pop by once every two months or so.
In researching the cause of strange dream phenomena (such as when you see someone appear just before they call your name in the real world) I came accross a theory that anything we hear when dreaming is actually delayed by a few seconds before being processed by the conscious mind. The result can be that you appear to have been made aware of something before it happened.
However, this manifestation of a "voice" is certainly peculiar and fascinating. Any history of clairvoyance in your family?
What you found on strange dream phemomena is quite interesting. I think it is possible that my subconscious could have picked up on my friend's voice talking to someone before he came through the gate, and, consequently, informed me, via that sharp little voice in my head. When he came on up, unfortunately, I never asked him if he had been chatting with someone before coming through the gate. But I doubt it, based on his very quiet voice. Never heard his voice down there on all previous visits.
To answer your question, no, I don't know of any history of clairvoyance in my family. I don't consider myself a psychic, ie., what is typically meant by it in the media today. I think, or rather, it is my "opinion" that I have exhibited some clairvoyance in a spontaneous, uncontrolled manner for a limited amount of time. What led me to this opinion was not one particular experience, but a series of them caused by a particular kind of voice that was always spot on, as far as I could tell.
1. Ha, the voice even seemed mischievous one time! Upon waking from a dead sleep, it said to me, "It's J.D." I dismissed it and got up. Shortly after, I walked a couple of miles up to my brother's place. I knocked and his Dutch buddy answered the door. He told me my brother was away and that he and his wife were watching the kids until the kids' Aunt Janet arrived from Hamilton. His english was rough but I definitely got it. I began arguing with him that it had to be Aunt Marg because Janet...
2. ...was living in another province. As I got frustrated and tried to explain it to him, his wife came down the stairs and cleared it up by saying that indeed it was Janet who would be watching the kids. She was visiting and staying with her sister in Hamilton. I left and went about my day. Upon waking out of a dead sleep the next day, the voice said, "It's J.D." I was still lost but amazed at it happening a 2nd time. Then it kicked in: the only J.D. I knew was Janet Dumphy, ie., Aunt Janet.
As for your grandfather dying - this is more difficult to debunk.
Two theories come to mind; the first one being that if your grandfather was sick for some time before dying, and if you knew him (and his mannerisms) very well, you mighty simply have predicted his death on a subconscious level using pure logic.
Second theory is what's known as "confirmation bias", you may have been having bad dreams for some time and simply forgotten or ignored the ones that didn't coincide with his death.
Or, alternatively, you might have retrospectively altered your memory of what the "voice" said to you in order to accomodate your grandfather's death.
Sleep whispers are an increasingly common phenomenon, they tend to occur when on the very fringe of sleep, but while still conscious. Often times they sound garbled and distant, hard to make out, but sometimes they come through very clearly.
I do not know what causes it, and I consider psychic signals or some kind of RV to be a possibility.
Your first theory about my grandfather dying is spot on. I did know that he was ill at the time. This was the likely explanation in my mind, yet the experience did give me pause because it was the first time something like this had ever happened to me, and I kept wondering if it could have been a psychic occurrence.
And it wasn't till 15 years later when I had a year and a half of this clear voice again in my head upon waking from a dead sleep--7 times, and never wrong as far as I could tell
1. Even during these unusual experiences with my clock that was twenty + years, I had another approach by this voice upon awakening. It told me that my alarm clock would be going off in a second. It did, & then I opened my eyes. My skepticism searched for an explanation & found the idea that the clock had already gone off in my sleep before the voice & awakening, but I soon realized that my old electric clock always kicked in with a loud static charge, which happened only after the voice.
...I am told by my brother that our grandfather had just died in the night. This was enough to give me pause. But there were other cases. I later undertook a study of reading psychic literature, hoping to see if there was anything to it. Repeatedly, I was woken AT ODD TIMES by a voice telling me the time on my clock. The first time, I laughed and didn't check the clock. When I did, it was off about as long as my hesitation. The next few times, I always looked, and it was dead on by the minute.
My impression is that psychic ability is, at least, a spontaneous uncontrolled phenomenon. I think of William James's "Variety of Religious Experiences." Sure you can take the Bertrand Russell viewpoint that the mind is a tricky affair and that therefore nothing psychic is verifiable, but then again, I get the feeling that Russell never had a psychic or highly unusual experience, himself. I mean, like the time I awoke hearing a voice telling me my grandfather had just died, and minutes LATER...
Universities teach that psychic phenomena have been looked into by their competent best and nothing has been found. These well trained investigators, with an expertise in research design, etc., are not all that wealthy, nor known, and I guess that, at least, a few of them would love to take Randi's million dollors if they could truly prove it. And, if successful, it's the nobel prize and an immortal place in history. But somehow, I always keep an eye up in case the truth is waiting in the wings.
...perhaps the mind does contain causal powers that have been objectively measured by scientists. The effects may be too miniscule and difficult to measure by mere observation. I have heard that this has been done. I am no expert to judge. But I did read a book entitled, "Thinking Straight About Psychology" in university, wherein the author says psychology has looked into psychic phenomena and found nothing, and that psychologists claiming proof have been warned about messy research design.
Science certainly must contain the philosophical underpinning of "determinism" when it goes about one of its experiments. It would certainly be an irony if a scientific experiment should prove indeterminancy in some area of inquiry. This deterministic web of cause and effect, I think, is even learned implicitly by toddlers, which is: "things act in accordance to their identities." The child learns that the balloon will pop if he sticks it with a pin, and not if he merely wishes it. BUT...
"...there have been many research organizations and reliable scientists to perform tests on "paranormal" matters which proved more than succesful..." is a claim.
This is why I was asking for source and proof.
I don't pursue science. I use science to pursue truth.
I don't have faith in anything - except that the money will stay in the bank as no super-natural being will come to claim it.
Go to jref and discuss the process with the experts, not here.
"I don't have faith in anything - except that the money will stay in the bank as no super-natural being will come to claim it."
So you *DO* have faith - and THAT is the problem. Faith is BAD SCIENCE. Your faith is based on assumptions, and assumptions can be flawed, therefore it is thoroughly unscientific to base your opinion on that. This makes you guilty of the SAME ATTITUDE as those you condemn as cons. As I said, it's easier to get away with it when hiding behind the badge of rationality.
As for the successful tests - they're the ones making the claims, I merely referenced them. And no, I'm not gonna sit here and spend hours digging up all the evidence that *you* should be seeking if you really want to have an INFORMED OPINION when you try to impress onto other people.
You say you use science to pursue truth, yet you have a *critical* lack of understanding on the most basic principles of it. If you must debate it, you are obligated to actually USE the scientific methodology.
That's my point - they're NOT experts. This need to rely on assumptions to hold up your argument only proves exactly why you're in the wrong in this debate
You assume that just because the JREF is the flagship for your cause that this makes them experts, that it makes them infallible somehow and puts them in an untouchable position. It doesn't. Stop leaning on other people, and do the research for YOURSELF before you make up your mind. THAT is science
You ask for evidence - of what exactly? I've made no claims. But it is much easier to trivialize my case with the overused refrain "no evidence" than to actually respond to my points - which if anything only validates that my points are irrefutable and therefore proves I might just be right.
Now as I explained already, science cannot prove a negative - it is NOT good science to say that something does not exist, just because we cannot prove it does.
In order to understand my arguments, you need to understand Science - rather than just hiding behind it like a magical shield which somehow instantly authenticates whatever you say as long as you label the opposition unscientific.
To be a skeptic does not mean dismissing something by using "science" like some irrefutable holy doctorine, on the blind faith that what it has shown you, whether you understand it or not, must be the truth. You need to actually grasp the scientific methodology.
"God never lies"
Mmm.
Firstly, God only speaks through men who lie all the time to fool, control and rob the ignorant.
Secondly God is a made up concept.
LiamXaoh 1 month ago
If Gellar is one of the best and this proves he is bullshit then the rest, by association, must be worse than bullshit.
LiamXaoh 1 month ago
smoking on the tonightshow! awesome! : ))))
jazzsonic 4 months ago
How can grown-ups believe that walking around on stage yelling and pushing people can cure cancer? The stupidity and ignorance you need for that... I can hardly imagine.
kablamo9999 6 months ago
"I believe him because God never lies" .... ooookay, but doesn't it occur to you that PEOPLE lie about god?
hack451 7 months ago 7
@hack451 yeah.. people...thats including you.
TheGuinnessboys 3 months ago
Best part about this is watching Carson smoke right there on television.
hack451 7 months ago 2
Is the old man with the white beard AronRa at 60?
robvlob 8 months ago
JAMES Randi is my hero since 2007
andyken 10 months ago
@andyken - then you have been a disillusioned person since 2007
LiamXaoh 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ha ha ha ha ha!
Jayoung1000 1 year ago
does he believe in god,,,,????????????
morro765060 1 year ago
@morro765060 What´s the difference?
ebrobaru 1 year ago
Poor Ricardo Montalban!
AmazingGordo 1 year ago 2
@AmazingGordo But he still looks MMMAAAAHVALOUS
tbdonnelly67 11 months ago
in a sort of way i hate the people who like to be fooled like this more than i hate the profiteer. but still i woulds hang the impostor
ErikCartman 1 year ago
"God never lies." No, he doesn't but low life scum do. How many people died early deaths do to believing him? :( Hopefully some were cured through faith but it wouldn't be by that low life. This makes me sad.
akwolfsong 1 year ago
@akwolfsong Get with the times its far faster to be healed by e-mail
robvlob 8 months ago
@robvlob ??
akwolfsong 8 months ago
@akwolfsong Instead of having to go somewhere to have a faith healer heal you get healed by healing e-mails just as effective far cheaper and faster
robvlob 8 months ago
popov was an evil trickster who i'm sure left these supposedly cured people wondering what THEY did wrong to be not cured. evil evil evil
cmichael67 1 year ago
if i was johny carson id be like your a fucking fraud get the hell out of my studio
Cexxloc 1 year ago
"are you ready for god to burn that cancer out?" ? are you serious? why did he put that cancer there to begin with?
desconocidos27 1 year ago
i can barely watch this! hehe its so shaming!! loool good for the bastard!!
cornbrief 1 year ago 2
they smoked on TV before??? this shit must be really old!
tetleydidley 1 year ago
@tetleydidley you know I thought the EXACT same thing the whole time XD the video wasn't that interesting while Randi wasn't speaking :P everyone should already know Uri is a big fraud anyway
Naglefar1988 1 year ago
"The radio scanner we brought to the hall..."
Man, this is pee-your-pants hilarious!
wannawatchu66 1 year ago
She believes her cancer is healed "because God never lies." In other words, God is speaking through this jerkoff evangelist-healer's mouth. No matter which is true it's still just as horrifying.
RLore18 1 year ago
I like Popoff but Cartman from South Park is better at this kind of stuff :)
naurispunk 1 year ago
The whole of our society is based on this kind of thinking the scientific method is almoust not used at all... Get a grip of reality BEFORE you make decisions and participate that has consequences you have NO idea of even existing!
Reality = What you know exists - what you know doesnt exist.
MURDOCMULDOON 1 year ago
hahhahahah i though he is going to punch the old woman
scancool 1 year ago
Geller and Popoff are both slimy scammer fucks who deserve the worst. Still, anyone stupid enough to believe them deserve to be conned.
AresCassell 1 year ago 2
@AresCassell That seems rather cruel. Plenty of people are desperate or raised in an environment where things like faith healing feel reasonable. Not to mention that Popoffs stuff was somewhat clever in the coordination he used. The fact is that people need to be informed so that they can learn and avoid being conned by these people.
Darkstar1484 1 year ago 3
Comment removed
OwnedOver9000 1 year ago
Make stupid claims and you'll end up looking stupid
OwnedOver9000 1 year ago
I love seeing the psychics sweating balls.
'I feel pressed - I want you to do this, that' - ' Well, isnt that the idea?'
tellurye 1 year ago
The hell of it is Popoff is back in business milking the suckers again.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
is there a part 3?
evo8FQ400 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Geller is an attention whore, soon after MJ's death he claimed to be good friends with him.
Popoff is just a greedy shithead.
LoboDeMedianoche13 1 year ago
That part where that asshole popoff hit that grandma to the ground and yelled hallelujah was funny
SCAREDBANANA 2 years ago
"SMACK That cancer with your fist" LMAO!!! 3:16
crazyjin 2 years ago
As I told you before, you can tell him yourself. Just log to his website
ebrobaru 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
To anyone who reads these messeges, could you please tell mr. randi that I've been waiting for a response. it's time for me to put a stop in all this nonsense about fake psychics. I'm real and I know of and elder who came before me and he is real too. I am impervious to illness and I say that If You want the proof, it's right here trying to slap you in the face for ignoring it. I'm willing to bet my life against his Million, in my opinion the stakes couldn't be higher.
leutious1 2 years ago
James Randi is my idol!
DiarmaidGNR 2 years ago
Uri Geller is so fake man
JohnkHutchinson2010 2 years ago 4
No part 3?
metabog 2 years ago
James Randi the PWNER!
WhatsAfterThisPlace 2 years ago
is there a part 3?
trident3b 2 years ago
There is something so dreadfully abhorrent about making so much money giving people who are so ill, or even facing death, such outrageous false hope. The US has always been a good playing field for this sort of thing it seems.
trident3b 2 years ago
"This scares me"
Of course it scares you, cause it's not something you prepared/set up for beforehand...
phil367153206 2 years ago 63
@phil367153206 Yeah his sudden honesty in that moment was GREAT.
Xezlec 1 year ago 2
bullshit fraud cheat-thief that Uri Geller is, was fun to watch him shown for the fake profiteer that he is
TapOutSnap 2 years ago 47
@TapOutSnap its sad that people still bought into his crap....
ffgew22 1 year ago
Popoff is a jackoff.
miketodd67 2 years ago 4
URI
Un
Real
Idiot
TomthatiscalledTom 2 years ago
Awe. Where is part 3?
desirexnoel 2 years ago
Did you find part 3? Where is part 3?
TheFutureLooksGrimm 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Lmao. Santa Claus REASONING POWERS.
Website:
online-telekinesis-school.webs [DOT] com
NathanielZhe 2 years ago
must see pt.3!!!!!!!!!
LetsGo6009 2 years ago
Where are the other parts of this video?
maureenOWW 2 years ago
And POPOFF, I'd forgotten about that cunt.
I'd smite HIM with my fist, the filthy scumbag.
maureenOWW 2 years ago 2
Has anyone seen the Noels House Party clip where he is filmed with a hidden camera, and can be seen clearly bending a spoon under a table? That's was hilarious...it's was GAME OVER, GAME OVER URI!
His career ended right there, thanks to Noel fucking Edmonds! At least he did SOMETHING useful with his life, the hairy midget....
maureenOWW 2 years ago 2
i like the pschic music at 0:05
kbplaya33 2 years ago
Uri Geller is so fake man.
fudgebucket55 2 years ago
i fuckin hate uri geller.what a fake
86artist 2 years ago
Uri had abit of Santas James Randi's Sperm Sack, making him lose his psychic powers.
KigurumiAlice 2 years ago 2
I agree with this statement.
JelloJoeexD 2 years ago
lol LMFAO
KigurumiAlice 2 years ago
Anyone who believes this nonsense is just as stupid as those ancients who would perform human sacrifices because the "sun was dying". Its just ridiculous to believe that a thing which causes an effect can have no measurable impact so as to be defined by or subject to a natural process- i.e. if I can levitate, I can prove to you that I can levitate. If I cannot then the lack of ability is self-apparent.
What losers.
TaurusCanser 2 years ago 3
Can you prove to me that you have emotions?
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
I can demonstrate to you that I understand what emotions are, I can provoke emotional response from thousands of miles away. You can compare our brain wave patterns when shown emotional stimuli.
Yes. I can prove to you that I have emotions.
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
Point A - no contention.
Point B - You can *seem* to provoke an emotional response, but there's no way of knowing if it was genuine. And even if so, this does not prove that YOU have emotions.
Point C - If my contention is that I don't possess emotions, when in fact I do, then comparing our brainwaves during stimuli would seem to prove to me that you also don't possess emotions.
How can you prove that brainwaves are indicative of emotion? All you prove is that *something* is happening.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
Sadly there are two things that we are proving right now
1.) The strength of the scientific method. & 2) Schools have failed.
(Do not take offense)
If one is looking for proof, why would one sabotage the results by faking emotional responses that would throw off the test? Through the test we would be able to determine that the areas active in your brain were different from mine, so we would need a third (non-biased) person to test.
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
(Ignoring insults)
Point A - You somehow missunderstood my premise, it was not sabotage that I was suggesting but simply a delusion. If my delusion is that I think I have no emotions, and also that YOU have no emotions, and everyone else for that matter, then using a brain scan would not prove anything to me. If your brain scan during stimuli looks the same as mine, then from my perspective you are proving that you are like me; emotionless. A third person could also be regarded the same way.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
I will say it again, do not take offense. That was not an insult. It is a fact that our schools have failed in teaching science.
You asked, "Can you prove that you have emotions?"
My answer should have been, "Yes, to any reasonable person who wanted proof."
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
Another tenant of Science is reserving prejudgment. I can assure you my study of it, albeit mostly self-taught (schooling I grant you is not great) is sufficient. Rather than trying to anticipate where I'm going with this debate and assuming that I don't know what I'm talking about - just indulge me.
Your refined answer lays the foundation for my argument. "Any reasonable person". Bear this phrase in mind as we continue, and remember that we are all human, flawed and capable of irrationality.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
I am disheartened @ my inability to convince you that my objective is not to offend. Those who are self taught in most scientific pursuits, are usually the ones who have a solid grasp on the fundamentals. I have seen your comments before & have seen sound reasonings, I cannot know your intent so I will not, & have not jumped to a final conclusion. Reread my statements to FSA. I enjoy seeing the workings of other minds, this type of discourse is mental exercise. All who read will benefit.
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
Sorry it has taken me so long to reply, I had other matters to deal with.
Regardless of whether or not you're trying to offend me, I am not offended that easily, so the matter is purely academic at this point. (Although I fail to see any other possible motive for saying "schools have failed" in retaliation to someone's preliminary argument other than to be insulting, your intentions behind that are quite clear so let's stop dancing.) Conversation is limited here, PM me if you want to use IM.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
I have said it more than once, & I will not continue to state it. If you are unwilling to accept my sincere words that is your choice. Why else would I have gone to such efforts to assure that I meant & mean no disrespect in my RESPONSE (not RETALIATION)?
Unified scholastic curriculum is meant to standardize certain things one should be able to call "common knowledge". Yet, can we say that it is so?
Psychology is my thing. Using the scientific method, we define & treat mental irregularities.
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
All pre-college schooling should either equate to preparation for higher learning endeavors or at the least comprehension of the basics. The average person in America does not understand what a "Theory" is, this should be alarming to our leaders.
Arab Nations once taught the world arithmetic. Now look at them. Will we revert to their level of unreasonable sociopolitical lifestyle?
One should be able to use key words that are universally understood to have a certain meaning. Not so.
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
Just look at our continuing discussion & understand this fact. The mean (average) reading level in American literature (Magazines, novels, news paper articles) is equal to ~6th grade. Our discussion, as simple as it has been for the two of us, is well beyond the majority of American printing standards!
OUR SCHOOLS HAVE FAILED.
Who will build our jets, bombs, power plants, and medical equipment in the future if things continue the way they are?
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
Oh, and the fact that you were offended is exemplified by your persistence in claiming that my intent was to offend. I've never stated to you that your intent is obviously to argue, although it would seem so to every colleague I've shared this particular thread with, but any onlooker could surmise my opinion if I continually made the comment that "you just like to argue, even if you are wrong you would argue trying to be right..."
One cannot be lead to an understanding they refuse to accept.
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
'Who will build our jets, bombs, power plants, and medical equipment in the future if things continue the way they are? '
Mexicans, under contract.
maureenOWW 2 years ago
If I can aptly describe feelings that you have experienced, but no one else has seen you experience, it should serve as proof that I too have emotions. The first evidence is my ability to demonstrate understanding of the unseen, unknowable, concealed nature of emotion. Just in proving cognition, I show understanding beyond what can be seen, therefore I would be more likely than not to share emotional states.
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
Point B - Irrelevant, if my belief is that both you and I have no emotions, then you will not be able to describe emotions I have felt. In fact, to better put what I am trying to achieve here in context, let's imagine that everyone in the world believes they are emotionless, except you.
You know you have emotions, you could prove it to other people who have emotions, but even if hypothetically there were a small group of others who had them, I could dismiss them as being as delusional as you.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
You are right. That does constitude proof. *To me*.
To anyone else it is "mass hysteria", or "confirmation bias", or even "hot reading" - in positing a similar argument some time ago I was rebutted with the insinuation that everyone who claims to possess psychic ability and describes the exact same things has simply researched it online in order to gain access to a list of symptoms which they could fake
Logical argument, but if it can be used there, then it discredits your emotions as well
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
Psychic phenomenon would be proven true if one could use my methods of proving emotional existence. One cannot though, so it cannot be proven true. In fact, a strong argument toward the disproving of psychic powers is found in looking at the brain scans of those who say they have psychic abilities and those who staunchly say the powers do not exist. The test show no new cranial activity along any frequency, no unaccounted neuro-chemical levels, & zero greater than chance responses.
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
Lastly, the "something" that would be happening would happen each time a certain stimuli was given. Through repeatedly giving a stimuli and repeatedly getting a reaction a definitive correlation would be shown. Once the correlation is shown, all we would have to do is look for the specific brainwave reaction in others.
This is one of the basic tenets of science. Test, observe, document, theorize/predict, test, observe, true/false. True= sound theory. False= try again.
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
*Observe, test, document, theorize/predict, test prediction, observe true/false. True= sound theory. False= unfounded theory.
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
(Appologies for the delay.)
Point C - Again, this only proves that there is "something" happening, just because the "something" is consistent, does not mean there is a correlation between the premise and the conclusion. You can say that the brain wave spike is you feeling emotion, I could argue that it is some other form of reaction to the stimuli. You described the scientific methodology well, but this for not account the intervention of others denying that any of those steps are conclusive.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
To summarize; I ask you to find a way to prove to me, and hypothetically a large body of persons who are not inherrently open to the idea, that you possess emotions.
Bear in mind that if you invoke other people who also feel them, they can be dismissed as delusional. If you persist in trying to prove passive correlations, I can merely suggest alternative ones. And even if you could outright prove you have emotions, what's to stop the rest of us from dismissing your work as biassed or faked?
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
Although your original question was slightly different, "Can you prove to me that you have emotions?" My answer needs only slight modification to provide sufficient retort for the reasonable-
By testing the brainwave patterns of a percentage of emotion deniers against emotion believers a definitive correlation would be shown to exist between the active portions of the mind & experience of emotion, regardless of what the deniers wanted to call the feelings that made the tears or the smiles.
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
I think what Mr. Utopia down there is also trying to do in order to make his point, is to essentially, in a very indirect way, re-define the term emotion until it's ultimately meaningless.
FSAthe1st 2 years ago
Hello FSA,
If one looks closer at Utopia's argument, one might see a theist view point. (I know that this might seem like another poke at Utopia, but again, I swear it is not). The thought that one can experience something that cannot be quantified is false. We in this world only experience reality through our senses. Our senses measure physical phenomenon only, period. So EVERYTHING that can be experienced in reality is done on this material plane where science can study.
:)
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
Again I ask you to reserve analysing my agenda, let's wait and see how it plays out before you decide what superstition I hail from.
You say that my view is false, everything can be quantified; yet I've asked you one simple question; prove that you have emotion.
So far the only evidence you have is correlation.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
Youtube message box is acting wierd not letting me post. Annoying.
Anyway, you have only shows me correlation so far. While I apparently lack schooling, you should know, being better educated, that this is *not* scientific proof.
So thus far, you have failed to prove this provable fact which you posit. Although I am not denying that you can, I am merely pointing out that so far your points have not been sufficient.
Nevertheless - the game is afoot!
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
I hate when that happens. I had a beautiful summation, pushed post & got the gray screen of death...
Indeed, showing correlation is not the completion of any scientific process. It is one of the steps though. If this step can be made & a structured relationship between events can be proven by replication, predictions can be made & proven false. Falsification is necessary, if it cannot be proven false it does not exist and the point is moot (as in only hypothetical).
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
"Indeed, showing correlation is not the completion of any scientific process."
And this is the only concession I needed you to make. I want to remind you that what I asked you for when we began was *PROOF THAT YOU HAVE EMOTIONS*.
Your concession that the correlations you have so far presented are not technically proof, in and of itself, contradicts your claim that you successfully met my challenge.
Therefore, as it stands I am evidently still waiting for you to PROVE you have emotions;
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
Wow...
"completion of any scientific process"
1+1= 3
This equation is true whether you want to believe it or not. the proof is before me right now as I type: I have one box containing one beer and one box containing two beers...
1+1 is not 3, unless one is a mutable (which it is).
One can say, "That's not true. There are only two boxes" all they want, but those two boxes still equal three beers, FACTUALLY. My view your view, his view, her view. There are three beers in these two boxes.
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
Leaving out statements about the nature of the equation leads to statements that disagree with fact. A fact being defined as what is actual & not debatable. You are alive; regardless of what you say, the fact that you can say it means you are alive. Non-debatable.
Proving to a misguided person the fact that I have emotions is not the same as proving the existence of emotion to a in-exist-able population of emotionless sentient beings that just happen to share my language.
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And you already stated that you received proof from me...
["TheFounderUtopia (8 hours ago) Show Hide 0
Marked as spam
Reply | Spam
You are right. That does constitude proof. *To me*."]
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
Friend, establishing correlation is the foundation of actualizing knowledge. One can use scans to see the areas that light up when happy vs sad vs unsure vs sure to prove emotion, if you would call emotion something else that is a linguistic issue. The areas of the brain are like keys on a keyboard. Emotion is a combination of different cranial regions becoming active and passing chemicals. All of which can be measured & quantified.
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
But none of which can be truly *known* to be what they supposedly are. You can say that this cocktail of hormones provokes that emotional response, but to a collection of people who are completely emotionless, you are referencing a state of being to which they cannot relate, and therefore can NOT be quantified.
To draw the parralels between the scan results and human emotion, you need to define and prove what emotion IS. Now imagine doing that in a world where you are the only one who has it.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
The release of chemical IS emotion. Without it emotion does not exist. Emotion makes us want sex, food, safety, etc. For humans to exist, we must have emotions. Prove the Sun exists to a sunless people...
The people you speak of do not exist. You say prove an existing thing to a non-exist-able population. The opposite is possible, only because people who will believe anything exist, but your newest rendition of example has no founding.
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
Hey FSA, you're in the right ball park, but if you are interested to see where I am going with this feel free to keep watching. Suffice to say I am not so much trying to render the term itself meaningless, but the concept. I am trying to show how even something that is true can be ignored and denied, have holes poked in it and rendered illogical, even when staying within the confines of decent scientific methodology. I am trying to show how even truth takes a backseat to popular opinion.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
The thrill of magic is having a logical conclusion APPARENTLY disproved by one's own eyes. Logic can be ignored, but even some wrong things are logical. Truth is not always logical. The concept of logic cannot be categorized with truth, although to do such would be reasonable, lol!
One could reason themselves into a false logic, & one could logically have false reasoning. Some people believe true things for the wrong reasons. Their very belief is illogical.
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
But remember it goes both ways. Sometimes people disbelieve things solely because they seems illogical, in spite of the truth.
What I'm trying to get accross to you here is that the only plausible argument to the situation I have engineered, relies on the *assumption* that emotion is a prexisting, preunderstood thing. It depends on there being a universal prior knowledge of it, for you to be able to say "and this is when emotion happens". Take away that assumption, and what are you left with?
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
I agree whole heatedly with your first statement here; logic, belief & truth are not correlative.
Let me see if I understand the next part:
1st person (1p)- Kidegofieu are the best ever!
2p- What are you talking about? You just made that up!
1p- What? No I didn't!
2p- Prove it!
& that ( I think) is where we are, there is either proof, or there is not proof. One can LITERALLY see emotion happen on a neuro imaging machine, so call it something different, but it is visible, measurable, real.
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
Granted my original question was different, merely because I had not refined it enough to be a proper example of what I am trying to portray.
Nevertheless, a true scientist does not rely on statistical correlations. These are meant as a guide for research, not evidence of conclusion. Every time someone presses the doorbell, my heart happens to be beating. This is a correlation - NOT A CAUSATION.
The emotion deniers can easily claim that the reaction evidence is *not emotional* in nature.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
I did already explain this in my point B rebuttal, which you didn't seem to acknowledge.
Correlation has uses when trying to pin down a path of research, let's say you are studying solar flares and their effects on technology - you might want to observe the statistical correlations between failed radio signals and flare activity. These correlations are *not* proof in and of itself that the flares caused the failures, the correlations give you a rough idea of where to BEGIN looking for proof.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
By objectively noting a correlation one can form a thesis. Theory is sound prediction based on study. Study is observation & objective notation. If a prediction is correct, the theory is sound. If a theory is sound it can be used to solve deeper mysteries of like order.
My (non straw man) example follows...
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
Goats get jumpy after eating a berry? Eat the berry, get jumpy, rename the berry & sell as beans. Thus, coffee is introduced to the world by an Ethiopian. The correlation between jumpy goats & the berries was made, the research was done, coffee is created. Now, we take coffee & use it to make medicines. That is both science & applied science.
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
What you described here can also be said for homeopathy.
There is a REASON why this kind of commercial correlation tactic is not used in science as conclusive proof.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
I do not want to jump to a conclusion, but it seems you are saying that caffeine is homeopathic. Are you denying the numerous sleep studies, ADD/ADHD studies, depression studies, cancer studies, liver & kidney studies, and addiction studies? Or are you saying that caffeine could effect one, in doses of 1:100,000 like the homeopathic companies claim?
Help me out here...
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
If you haven't figured it out yet, what I'm trying to show you is that some aspects of reality are SUBJECTIVE. They cannot BE studied objectively.
Consider the case of a hypothetical colour blind man. He sees red and green reversed. Every time he sees red, he processes it as green and vice versa. For his entire life hes been told that this green colour he sees is called "red", so while he sees it differently, he calls it the same name. How would he, or anyone else ever know he's colour blind?
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
ALL aspects are subjective. I cannot see through your eyes, only mine. That is fact, but I can know what you are seeing by you telling me. If you say that you see yellow plus blue as red, I know that either my perspective is in question or yours is. The truth is (in this case) by the numbers, but no matter how many people say that you do not exist, you are still here. Your existence is NOT a subjective truth. You exist, whether people know it/ acknowledge it, or not.
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
I touched on reasoning before, your point c though, is illogical. If one pushes the "door bell" on a house & a chime is heard, one can logically reason the door bell is connected to the sound. Even if false, the reasoning is logical. If one repeatedly pushes the door bell & each press brings a chime, logic would dictate the assumption of correlation to be true. To think else with the given evidence would be both illogical & unreasonable.
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
Door bell argument -
This is somewhat of a strawman on your part, although apparently not deliberate. I have not said that logic is flawed, I am not attacking the *act of reasoning*. What I am saying is that even if being reasonable, your conclusion can still be denied.
Turn the example around. Let's consider that everyone on earth is deaf but you. Your assertion that the door bell makes noise is reasonable, but we have no reason to accept it.
Now reapply this to my original analogy.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
You said it yourself, even IF the conclusion is false, the reasoning is logical. What IF the conclusion IS false? A scientist must be willing to consider this, and a scientist who has believed his entire life that it IS will be compelled to stick to that belief. And while preconceptions are not good science, anyone can warp the scientific methodology to justify them
This is not an attack on science, but on the inherrent biasses of human nature, which cannot be denied, and must not be ignored.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
Without reason, deceit becomes easy. Only where everything can be argued as falsifiable, can truth exist. Subjective truth is not truth at all. Objective truth only exists when people put their own beliefs aside. A circle is not a circle because I see it as a circle. My vision cannot be trusted to make that definitive judgment, I can only see from my prospective what you see as a triangle...
Objective= ignoring all bias & human nature (unless one is studying bias & human nature, of course).
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
Sorry but you are wrong here. Subjective truth does exist, you are proving it right now. Information IS subjective. The words we are writing are not magical containers which dispense a physical substance which we call meaning - the meaning behind the words is interpretted mentally. The substance of our communication exists within our mind, not as an objective physical entity. All information is subjective, and all of it has a truth behind it. And one cannot be objective about the mind of another
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
Truth is independent of viewpoint. I am in existence. From the aspect of an observer one google to the trillionth power away, I do not exist, but here I am. Truth is FACT. Subjective "truth" is NOT fact. Saying that a CONE is a CIRCLE or a TRIANGLE is false. It may appear as either via particular viewpoint, but it IS neither. Subjective truth IS NOT TRUTH, it IS opinion, perspective and mutable. I never said opinions do not exist friend, just that they are not "truth".
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
In this analogy the problem would be only in explaining how vibration effects the one. Establishing that vibration exists, showing a correlation between lower frequency vibration & the non-deaf reactions to higher frequency vibrations one could positively establish "noise" as in existence. Blindfolded & facing away from the source, one presses the button and the hearing can signal the occurrence. Double blind the study. A reasonable deaf person will accept this as proof.
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
(The reason I said "now apply this to my other example" is because this door bell metaphore was not my standing argument. It was not well rounded enough to represent my case, therefore this portion of your rebuttal was a wasted argument.)
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
The "door bell" analogy has merit because of the 'when this is done, this occurs' aspect of my proposed solution to your hypothetical. If one has no fear, but is able to experience pain, will that one (after being pierced through the hand) flinch as the piercing implement draws close to the other hand? The answer is not likely (we have found no absolutes). Fear is based on recollection, memory plus expectation make up the majority of emotion. If one has no emotion, one has no recollection.
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
If the memory center, pre-frontal lobe, & certain other "keys" become active (reward center etcetera), we know an emotional response is happening. We can tell happy from sad by seeing the different sections that light up.
EVERYTHING that exists can be quantified.
Humans are remarkably similar, as is all life to all other life. Hospitals would not exist if only 50% of people were similar. There's one way a body is built with only variation in proportion. & no, abnormalities don't count.
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
Hey, sorry for dissapearing 2 months ago while we were debating, I had internet problems that I just fixed.
I'm not sure where we were in the debate as it seems to be encoraching at several seperate points within the comment list and there's no way to isolate a timeline.
If you want to continue this debate, here or in PM/IM let me know. For now I'll rest on what I believe is the most relevant remaining point. You can't provide FULL proof of emotion, only correlations which work both ways.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
Prove Eta Carinae is hot and you will prove emotion exists. Prove a knife that is used to butcher can cut paper and you will prove emotion exists. We don't have to do things in order to know things. We can observe and compare. That is why we now know that there exists living micro organisms that make people sick, and the sane don't blame illness on spirits and such nonsense.
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
I see that rather than return to the present state of the debate and continue the point exchange you've instead chosen to resort to what I can only discern as a half-assed psuedo-philosophical strawman that clearly indicates you have no further interest in taking the debate seriously.
I respect this, but understand that since you're the one choosing to dismiss the debate despite crucial undisputed points to be addressed; I justifiably consider this to be a forfeit on your part. Take care. :)
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
whatever forfeit... the same tools man uses to measure that which was mentioned are used in measuring... It doesn't matter, this is pointless. You think what you want, NOTHING you ever hear, no proof ever given will ever cause you to realize the folly of your train of thought. So, emotion doesn't exist, even though emotional states can be seen to happen via brain scans...
Peace, be well.
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
You don't know what my train of thought is because in all these months you've been too stubborn to concede what is by now an obvious poin, in order to let me progress onto my overall argument.
The fact is you cannot prove you have emotion. I selected this for a special reason, emotion is a form of information, and information is always subjective. Thus you can never be truly objective about it and therefore cannot definitively prove it exists. Concede this fact, and we can finally progress.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
All I need to know about your "point" I have already seen. I can, & have in fact, lain out an accurate method of establishing whether or not emotion can be quantified. It can & has been.
Simple fact, everything mankind knows to exist can be proven to exist.
You disagree, so ask the parent of a child with autism who has witnessed the child's progressive dismissal of emotion, whether or not one can prove it exists.
Better yet, ask the child.
I found your argument interesting, but its done.
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
Carson was great. I can see why Frank Zappa found the show good.
crazykb 2 years ago
I wouldn't be strong any night which the world was not set up in my favor, either.
Magicians are good in the arts of deception and entertainment. There's too many superstitious, supernatural believers to funnel their own income into a charlatain's bank account. It all boils down to money, who can get it from who, and all is fair if it isn't force or theft.
I'll be looking forward to the scientific renaissance of the masses.
neonsilkworm 2 years ago
That's the problem. Almost everything is 'forced'. Even advertising is based on bullshit. Being skeptical is something that is of paramount importance. And it's in short supply in today's world.
crazykb 2 years ago
i dont feel strong tonight hahahahahahah
jwka2001 2 years ago
ya its called caught, and a joke. The guy is a joke.
Bigturns33 2 years ago
yea no shit,,, how can anyone believe this clown... i mean come on,,,lol.
jwka2001 2 years ago
wow Uri geller is such a fake,, already knew this but never saw this video hahahahahah
jwka2001 2 years ago
Fletch Lives!
Nice to see an idiot believer using spam to bury the comments into meaningless drivel. And for over a year he keeps doing it!
komninosm 2 years ago
Everything I said is the truth as best as I could tell it--I swear it on the graves of my parents. If my opinion is wrong opinion, then at least I had the courage enough to attempt to live in truth. And I think, at least, I, in my own mind, can more assuredly rest on this idea of the incredible power of the subconscious mind, if even tapped for a while. TheFounderUtopia's comment on the line that becomes blurred is very profound. Good words. Now I have said enough to get some muck off my pluck.
vinnynumbnuts 2 years ago
Science depends upon the idea that its hold on knowledge be both public & repeatable. Good stuff. But what of a kind of knowing that is private & nonrepeatable? Can this exist in a man or woman. Indeed it has & will continue to do so, I think. After all, much genius in science began as one person who knew truth in a private & nonrepeatable manner. Mere opinion? Well Plato described knowledge as truth tied down, & right opinion as truth not tied down. Mine is untied, but maybe not some day, no?
vinnynumbnuts 2 years ago
2. My next prosaic explanation for this experience was that my subconscious had timed when my alarm clock would be going off because of a long series of being awakened by it at the same time every day. The problem here was that I worked the night shift & was attending school together. Also had to drive my nieces to school on unpredictable days. I was going to sleep & awakening at different times. Many things were going on. My sleep was not regular, timewise. Any suggestions?
vinnynumbnuts 2 years ago
I believe this explanation makes the most sense. The mind is an incredibly powerful thing, and consciously we only have so much awareness with which to control it - as such a lot of its potential goes untapped.
There are people out there who can always tell you what time it is down to the second whenever you ask them, without looking at a watch. It is well within the subconscious mind's capacity to estimate exactly when the alarm will go off according to its own memories and wake you first.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
Well, first of all, thank you for your suggestions. What you said about the enormous capacity of the subconscious mind is certainly a worthy consideration. If it was my subconscious tracking time and letting me know, I am amazed at how it could juggle with my odd sleeping habits and let me know the time on my clock right down to the minute. When I awoke, I really had no idea of what time it was. But the voice was dead on every time. If it's not psychic, it's still amazing all the same.
vinnynumbnuts 2 years ago
I agree it is amazing. In fact, the more we learn about the awesome potential of the mind, the less unbelievable psychic ability begins to seem in my opinion.
The line between "paranormal" and "strange but true" seems to blur every day - and it's the status quo against paranormal belief which keeps having to change its borders to accomodate this.
Whether you consider it psychic or not, the human mind is an incredibly powerful thing.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
I think the best of my experiences was the time I woke from a dead sleep hearing this sharp, clear voice telling me: "Matt is here." Several seconds later, I heard the gate door slam below my window, then foot steps coming up the stairs and Matt knocking on my door, calling my name. I lived in a rooming house and seldom had visitors. My room was too small for guests and I usually just phoned and met them at their places. He or a family member might pop by once every two months or so.
vinnynumbnuts 2 years ago
In researching the cause of strange dream phenomena (such as when you see someone appear just before they call your name in the real world) I came accross a theory that anything we hear when dreaming is actually delayed by a few seconds before being processed by the conscious mind. The result can be that you appear to have been made aware of something before it happened.
However, this manifestation of a "voice" is certainly peculiar and fascinating. Any history of clairvoyance in your family?
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
What you found on strange dream phemomena is quite interesting. I think it is possible that my subconscious could have picked up on my friend's voice talking to someone before he came through the gate, and, consequently, informed me, via that sharp little voice in my head. When he came on up, unfortunately, I never asked him if he had been chatting with someone before coming through the gate. But I doubt it, based on his very quiet voice. Never heard his voice down there on all previous visits.
vinnynumbnuts 2 years ago
To answer your question, no, I don't know of any history of clairvoyance in my family. I don't consider myself a psychic, ie., what is typically meant by it in the media today. I think, or rather, it is my "opinion" that I have exhibited some clairvoyance in a spontaneous, uncontrolled manner for a limited amount of time. What led me to this opinion was not one particular experience, but a series of them caused by a particular kind of voice that was always spot on, as far as I could tell.
vinnynumbnuts 2 years ago
1. Ha, the voice even seemed mischievous one time! Upon waking from a dead sleep, it said to me, "It's J.D." I dismissed it and got up. Shortly after, I walked a couple of miles up to my brother's place. I knocked and his Dutch buddy answered the door. He told me my brother was away and that he and his wife were watching the kids until the kids' Aunt Janet arrived from Hamilton. His english was rough but I definitely got it. I began arguing with him that it had to be Aunt Marg because Janet...
vinnynumbnuts 2 years ago
2. ...was living in another province. As I got frustrated and tried to explain it to him, his wife came down the stairs and cleared it up by saying that indeed it was Janet who would be watching the kids. She was visiting and staying with her sister in Hamilton. I left and went about my day. Upon waking out of a dead sleep the next day, the voice said, "It's J.D." I was still lost but amazed at it happening a 2nd time. Then it kicked in: the only J.D. I knew was Janet Dumphy, ie., Aunt Janet.
vinnynumbnuts 2 years ago
As for your grandfather dying - this is more difficult to debunk.
Two theories come to mind; the first one being that if your grandfather was sick for some time before dying, and if you knew him (and his mannerisms) very well, you mighty simply have predicted his death on a subconscious level using pure logic.
Second theory is what's known as "confirmation bias", you may have been having bad dreams for some time and simply forgotten or ignored the ones that didn't coincide with his death.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
Or, alternatively, you might have retrospectively altered your memory of what the "voice" said to you in order to accomodate your grandfather's death.
Sleep whispers are an increasingly common phenomenon, they tend to occur when on the very fringe of sleep, but while still conscious. Often times they sound garbled and distant, hard to make out, but sometimes they come through very clearly.
I do not know what causes it, and I consider psychic signals or some kind of RV to be a possibility.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
Your first theory about my grandfather dying is spot on. I did know that he was ill at the time. This was the likely explanation in my mind, yet the experience did give me pause because it was the first time something like this had ever happened to me, and I kept wondering if it could have been a psychic occurrence.
And it wasn't till 15 years later when I had a year and a half of this clear voice again in my head upon waking from a dead sleep--7 times, and never wrong as far as I could tell
vinnynumbnuts 2 years ago
1. Even during these unusual experiences with my clock that was twenty + years, I had another approach by this voice upon awakening. It told me that my alarm clock would be going off in a second. It did, & then I opened my eyes. My skepticism searched for an explanation & found the idea that the clock had already gone off in my sleep before the voice & awakening, but I soon realized that my old electric clock always kicked in with a loud static charge, which happened only after the voice.
vinnynumbnuts 2 years ago
...I am told by my brother that our grandfather had just died in the night. This was enough to give me pause. But there were other cases. I later undertook a study of reading psychic literature, hoping to see if there was anything to it. Repeatedly, I was woken AT ODD TIMES by a voice telling me the time on my clock. The first time, I laughed and didn't check the clock. When I did, it was off about as long as my hesitation. The next few times, I always looked, and it was dead on by the minute.
vinnynumbnuts 2 years ago
My impression is that psychic ability is, at least, a spontaneous uncontrolled phenomenon. I think of William James's "Variety of Religious Experiences." Sure you can take the Bertrand Russell viewpoint that the mind is a tricky affair and that therefore nothing psychic is verifiable, but then again, I get the feeling that Russell never had a psychic or highly unusual experience, himself. I mean, like the time I awoke hearing a voice telling me my grandfather had just died, and minutes LATER...
vinnynumbnuts 2 years ago
Universities teach that psychic phenomena have been looked into by their competent best and nothing has been found. These well trained investigators, with an expertise in research design, etc., are not all that wealthy, nor known, and I guess that, at least, a few of them would love to take Randi's million dollors if they could truly prove it. And, if successful, it's the nobel prize and an immortal place in history. But somehow, I always keep an eye up in case the truth is waiting in the wings.
vinnynumbnuts 2 years ago
...perhaps the mind does contain causal powers that have been objectively measured by scientists. The effects may be too miniscule and difficult to measure by mere observation. I have heard that this has been done. I am no expert to judge. But I did read a book entitled, "Thinking Straight About Psychology" in university, wherein the author says psychology has looked into psychic phenomena and found nothing, and that psychologists claiming proof have been warned about messy research design.
vinnynumbnuts 2 years ago
This is stupid.
Ok, I'm wrong and you are right.
StopSpamming1 2 years ago
Thank you.
And good luck helping your brother. :)
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
Science certainly must contain the philosophical underpinning of "determinism" when it goes about one of its experiments. It would certainly be an irony if a scientific experiment should prove indeterminancy in some area of inquiry. This deterministic web of cause and effect, I think, is even learned implicitly by toddlers, which is: "things act in accordance to their identities." The child learns that the balloon will pop if he sticks it with a pin, and not if he merely wishes it. BUT...
vinnynumbnuts 2 years ago
Can you make this shorter?
"...there have been many research organizations and reliable scientists to perform tests on "paranormal" matters which proved more than succesful..." is a claim.
This is why I was asking for source and proof.
I don't pursue science. I use science to pursue truth.
I don't have faith in anything - except that the money will stay in the bank as no super-natural being will come to claim it.
Go to jref and discuss the process with the experts, not here.
StopSpamming1 2 years ago
"I don't have faith in anything - except that the money will stay in the bank as no super-natural being will come to claim it."
So you *DO* have faith - and THAT is the problem. Faith is BAD SCIENCE. Your faith is based on assumptions, and assumptions can be flawed, therefore it is thoroughly unscientific to base your opinion on that. This makes you guilty of the SAME ATTITUDE as those you condemn as cons. As I said, it's easier to get away with it when hiding behind the badge of rationality.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
As for the successful tests - they're the ones making the claims, I merely referenced them. And no, I'm not gonna sit here and spend hours digging up all the evidence that *you* should be seeking if you really want to have an INFORMED OPINION when you try to impress onto other people.
You say you use science to pursue truth, yet you have a *critical* lack of understanding on the most basic principles of it. If you must debate it, you are obligated to actually USE the scientific methodology.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
"discuss the process with the experts"
That's my point - they're NOT experts. This need to rely on assumptions to hold up your argument only proves exactly why you're in the wrong in this debate
You assume that just because the JREF is the flagship for your cause that this makes them experts, that it makes them infallible somehow and puts them in an untouchable position. It doesn't. Stop leaning on other people, and do the research for YOURSELF before you make up your mind. THAT is science
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
FounderUtopia, you've obviously given this some thought. But no source. Big words. No proof. No evidence.
Reading through your 3x500 posts I don't get your point.
We all know there are no psychics and no faith-healers. We all know hey are fakes and con-artists.
JRandi uncovered this. He proved that. Scientifically.
JRandi, or rather jref, will pay $1,000,000 to anyone that can prove any paranormal (or perinormal) abilities under their own scientific conditions.
The money stays in the bank.
StopSpamming1 2 years ago
I'm happy to explain my point to you. :)
You ask for evidence - of what exactly? I've made no claims. But it is much easier to trivialize my case with the overused refrain "no evidence" than to actually respond to my points - which if anything only validates that my points are irrefutable and therefore proves I might just be right.
Now as I explained already, science cannot prove a negative - it is NOT good science to say that something does not exist, just because we cannot prove it does.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
In order to understand my arguments, you need to understand Science - rather than just hiding behind it like a magical shield which somehow instantly authenticates whatever you say as long as you label the opposition unscientific.
To be a skeptic does not mean dismissing something by using "science" like some irrefutable holy doctorine, on the blind faith that what it has shown you, whether you understand it or not, must be the truth. You need to actually grasp the scientific methodology.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago